Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Surprise! A Fundie Is Incapable of Understanding the English Language!

It
seems there is a persistent and irascible (also under-educated) little fundie who still is unable to
parse or grasp the distinction of the agnostic atheist – in terms of
withholding belief in a deity. He evidently read my previous blog on fundies
unable to process these subtle distinctions- leading his febrile brain to go
haywire once more, and end up with the wrong conclusion. But this is to be expected when one's educational standards have always been low, and the person in question is more at home in a bar fight than a classroom.

So,
it seems we must explain it to him again, not that it’ll do any good –
especially if one lacks the capacity for abstract ACH thinking. (As an aside,
it’s clear this character couldn’t pass a PSAT Verbal test, far less a GRE
Verbal test!)

Recall
I had written:

“What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. in making a statement “There is no god,” but rather simply passivelywithholding belief in a
statement already made. Hence, the deity
believer has made the positive claim. The ontological
(implicit) atheist’s response is simply an absence of belief in it.
No more and no less. It does not and never has implied active disbelief,
aggressive rancor or a vehement and militant opposition to the beliefs.

Let me quickly add here that this withholding of belief is the more natural position, as opposed
to advocating belief, which is unnatural.”

Now,
believe it or not – probably not – this dumb fundie demands: “make up your
mind” i.e. “Is it withholding belief or absence of belief’?.’ This guy, who’s
probably had too many knocks on the head either from bats in bar room fights or from DI
pugil sticks, thereby interjects a false dichotomy (thought he likely doesn't know what that means either). Clearly he doesn’t grasp that they amount to one and the same thing.

If
I withhold belief what am I doing? Am I actively DO-ing anything? No! Despite
the word, it is a passive act. However, the consequence of the withholding is yes, the absence of belief in the claim.

You
tell me you have an alien in your attic but you can’t prove it or give me a snap
shot, so I withhold belief. I do not “deny” you have such an entity, only tell
you that minus the evidence I can’t bestow any investment of mental capital to
concur with it. Hence, you walk away minus that belief, and so for you - there is an ABSENCE of my belief. How simple can it be? But evidently it's like general relativity or advanced rocket science for this moron fundie.

Again, via any withholding, what
is the EFFECT? The effect is an ABSENCE of that which is withheld! (See for example the cartoon graphic pertaining to the doofus withholding Jacks from his playing card deck but claiming there's no absence of them in his deck.) Ipso facto, by any withholding one has engendered an ABSENCE of that withheld. This absence could not have existed if one
didn’t withhold. Why the inability to process the logical connection? I suggest a lack of ACH thinking ability, which as James Cheyne has observed, is also a critical feature of many standard IQ tests.

The
error made by this fundie lamo is to equate “withholding” belief to an active
response, as opposed to an absence of belief.In his incapacitated, regressive and forlorn
brain, withholding is like denying! He doesn’t grasp that there is a logical
and fundamental connection between withholding and absence -of whatever it is withheld.

The
Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary defines withholding as:

“to
refrain from granting or giving something”

It
defines absence as: “a
lack or deficiency of”

And
continues by way of explicating: i.e. to
withhold granting something will create a deficiency or lack in it, for example
withholding food- say to a starving populace- creates a deficiency or absence of
food.

In
other words, a logical connection obtains between the words. Now, it is true
that by use of the term “withhold” the causal consequence, i.e. directly
leading to absence may not be immediately apparent, but it ought to be implicit.At least it ought to
be to a person of even average intelligence. But then this guy was never even minor sub-Mensan level (e.g. top 20% as opposed to 2%)
to begin with. (He may be Densan, or lower 40%).

On
that note we shall have to leave it because though this deluded idiot believes he’s
“checkmated” me he’s really only shown the extent to which he’s checkmated
himself by stupidly entering a semantics war he isn’t outfitted (educationally or intellectually) to win. Maybe if he sits down and plays computer chess or GO he may improve his intellectual prowess, but given his only activity is blogging misinformation about his backward religious beliefs....I wouldn't make any bet that would work

The
point remains that withholding belief in a deity is the warp and woof of the
agnostic atheist, and it is correlated to an absence of belief - no matter how much hard heads want to contrive a ridiculous false dichotomy where none exists.

About Me

Specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools, has written thirteen books - the most recent:Fundamentals of Solar Physics. Also: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions;:'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God', Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions', 'Physics Notes for Advanced Level&#39, Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space, Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and 'A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy'. It details the background to my development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.